25 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyHave you heard of this fellow? David Eagleman? A neuroscientist who has written some books about this and other subjects, a brilliant dude! He was just interviewed on NPR here in the US.I am pretty sure live came about as a result of abiogenesis but it has yet to be proven.
but, surely, it wouldn't have to be 'proven' because life couldn't come from anything else other than abiogenesis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921
He calls himself a 'possibilian' meaning there are many hypotheses about how life started, one being the creation myth of the bible, others being asteroids crashed on Earth bringing with it bacteria started on asteroids or other bodies in the solar system, or another that aliens seeded Earth with life billions of years ago.
All these hypotheses are equally valid at this point in time since we have no absolute proof otherwise.
Personally I think creationism is a crock of shyte but it is one hypothesis of many.
Read about this guy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eagleman
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by sonhouseMight want to check that first link, something about a botched fresco restoration.
Have you heard of this fellow? David Eagleman? A neuroscientist who has written some books about this and other subjects, a brilliant dude! He was just interviewed on NPR here in the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921
He calls himself a 'possibilian' meaning there are many hypotheses about how life started, one being the creation myt ...[text shortened]... one hypothesis of many.
Read about this guy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eagleman
25 Aug 12
LIFE may really have been created by a spark, one that came as a bolt from the deep blue.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827844.100-did-life-begin-with-a-bolt-from-the-deep-blue.html
Since during the relevant time window of the origins of replicating molecules the primordial atmospheric pressure was high enough (> 100 bar) to precipitate ZnS near the earth´s surface aed
and UV irradiation was 10 to 100 times more intense than now, the unique photosynthetic properties mediated by ZnS provided just the right energy conditions to energize the synthesis of informational and metabolic molecules and the selection of photostable nucleobases.
Zn-World theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
It seems that electricity, pressure, free electrons and ions in salt water have played an important part in the formation of life on earth.
I'm not convinced thermal springs are the answer. UV radiation and temperature differentials were many many times stronger in early earth formation.
Heat differentials in underground water chambers could have had the same and potentially greater effects. Conditions somewhat similar to modern day Mars.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by sonhouseCreationism is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a myth.
Have you heard of this fellow? David Eagleman? A neuroscientist who has written some books about this and other subjects, a brilliant dude! He was just interviewed on NPR here in the US.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19349921
He calls himself a 'possibilian' meaning there are many hypotheses about how life started, one being the creation myt ...[text shortened]... one hypothesis of many.
Read about this guy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eagleman
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe can't rule out Carbon based life being a precursor for Silicon based life. If we're debating it now with only 200 years under our belt, what could happen in a thousand or a billion?
I disagree. I don't believe that all life is in competition and I don't see why carbon would 'win' or otherwise cause silicon life to fail. If anything, I think carbon would more than likely make it easier for something like silicon life to get started by providing a lot of complex molecules to utilize.
I must also point out that we haven't actually rule ...[text shortened]... based life forms in whole new categories that we know nothing about - yet are widespread.
Inorganic substances were the precursors to organic molecules. We accept that readily
but differentiate our role as precursors because we consider the mechanism of intelligence to be a 'creationist' act rather than entropy driven.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by sonhouseHe is outright wrong. Hypotheses do not have equal probability of being true simply because absolute proof is lacking. The probability of unproven hypotheses depends quite heavily on Occam's razor. Generally, the simplest explanation is the most likely.
All these hypotheses are equally valid at this point in time since we have no absolute proof otherwise.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTo be more accurate, Occam’s razor recommends the theory that makes the least magnitude of assumptions ( in other words, the least assumptive theory is the most probable; NOT the simplest! ) which may mean Occam’s razor actually may not recommend the 'simplest' theory but a more 'complex' theory! It is a very common misunderstanding that Occam’s razor simply says the 'simplest' theory is the most probable.
He is outright wrong. Hypotheses do not have equal probability of being true simply because absolute proof is lacking. The probability of unproven hypotheses depends quite heavily on Occam's razor. Generally, the simplest explanation is the most likely.
To explain why that is wrong, consider the two arbitrary opposing theories below:
1, plants use solar energy to chemically absorb carbon dioxide and water to form sugars and gaseous oxygen.
2, plants do not use solar energy.
If you thought the description of Occam's razor that says the 'simplest' theory should be recommended is the better description of Occam's razor then you might think that Occam's razor recommends theory 2, above. After all, theory 1 does seem a lot more 'complex' for it says not one thing but several things i.e. plants use solar energy AND do so to chemically absorb carbon dioxide and water AND then sugars and gaseous oxygen are made from this. In contrast, the only thing theory 2 says is plants do not use solar energy. But actually Occam's razor recommends theory 1 because, in this case, we happen to have good evidence for each of the things that it says including the “ plants use solar energy” part that directly contradicts theory two and, therefore, the sum of the 'magnitudes' of all the 'assumptions' in theory 1 (although the word 'assumptions' here may be the wrong word to use here since we are actually talking about the scientific facts) is less than the sum of the 'magnitudes' of all the 'assumptions' in theory 2 so that, despite theory 1 being more 'complex', theory 1 is the least assumptive and, therefore, Occam's razor recommends theory 1.
Applying my understanding of Occam's razor to the creation myth; the creation myth implicitly makes several very big assumes and which assumptions depends on the religion but typically assumes such things as there exists a supernatural AND, amongst the supernatural things, there exists a god ( which implicitly makes yet more assumptions because a 'god' is typically supposed to be very powerful AND conscious with a mind AND be able to do things by magic etc ) AND there exists only one god ( called “God” ) AND this god not only made life but ALSO made the whole entire universe! Not a single one of these wild assumptions has a shred of evidence to support it and this contrasts with the scientific explanation ( abiogenesis ) which makes no such wild or ridiculous assumptions thus, according to Occam's razor, the creation myth should be considered absurd and thus rejected.
-well, that is with my understanding of Occam's razor.
The only valid scientific theory for the origin of life is abiogenesis . Note that saying life was carried here by an asteroid still means abiogenesis must have taken place somewhere thus abiogenesis is still the ONLY rational/scientific explanation of the origin of life.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by humyRegardless of what we think of the mythology of creationism, we cannot rule it out.
To be more accurate, Occam’s razor recommends the theory that makes the least magnitude of assumptions ( in other words, the least assumptive theory is the most probable; NOT the simplest! ) which may mean Occam’s razor actually may not recommend the 'simplest' theory but a more 'complex' theory! It is a very common misunderstanding that Occam’s razor simply s ...[text shortened]... the ONLY rational/scientific explanation of the origin of life.
Also there are other hypotheses about the origins of life we cannot rule out either, like martian meteoroids with bacteria surviving the journey from a hit on Mars to its landing on earth and seeding life here (of course that just puts back the question of origins a bit further back, leaving that question unanswered).
There is also the hypothesis of Dr. Linus Pauling, the interstellar cloud idea.
Then there is the way out hypothesis of aliens seeding our planet a billion years ago.
None of those theories or hypotheses if you will, can be ruled out at this point in time so abiogenesis is only one of several hypotheses floating around.
25 Aug 12
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI disagree.
Regardless of what we think of the mythology of creationism, we cannot rule it out.
Also there are other hypotheses about the origins of life we cannot rule out either, like martian meteoroids with bacteria surviving the journey from a hit on Mars to its landing on earth and seeding life here (of course that just puts back the question of origins a bit f ...[text shortened]... uled out at this point in time so abiogenesis is only one of several hypotheses floating around.
A closer examination of the language structure used in the bible shows that it is
entirely based upon interpretation. There are few clear definitions between metaphor and literal.
The bible is also full of contradictions and meaningless statements.
To keep this open as a possibility would mean abandoning our entire language structure
and thus make scientific examination meaningless.
To interpret the bible at it's simplest level, that a 'being', 'created' the universe,
one would first need to define 'being' and 'creation' within a context.
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI totally agree, it is mythology codified into dogma. Nevertheless it cannot be disproven, regardless of the contextual problems.
I disagree.
A closer examination of the language structure used in the bible shows that it is
entirely based upon interpretation. There are few clear definitions between metaphor and literal.
The bible is also full of contradictions and meaningless statements.
To keep this open as a possibility would mean abandoning our entire language structu ...[text shortened]... the universe,
one would first need to define 'being' and 'creation' within a context.
25 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI'm not sure what is worse. Is it worse listening to atheists ramble on about theology or reading a thread about a hole on Mars? Someone, please tell me they spent billions of dollars to do something other than examine a hole on Mars.
I disagree.
A closer examination of the language structure used in the bible shows that it is
entirely based upon interpretation. There are few clear definitions between metaphor and literal.
The bible is also full of contradictions and meaningless statements.
To keep this open as a possibility would mean abandoning our entire language structu the universe,
one would first need to define 'being' and 'creation' within a context.
How about examing some more rocks? 😛
25 Aug 12
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not an atheist. I don't believe in such terms.
I'm not sure what is worse. Is it worse listening to atheists ramble on about theology or reading a thread about a hole on Mars? Someone, please tell me they spent billions of dollars to do something other than examine a hole on Mars.
How about examing some more rocks? 😛